Den tors 6 feb. 2025 kl 11:27 skrev Ilpo Järvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the drivers-x86 tree, today's linux-next build
> > (x86_64_allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > In file included from include/linux/kobject.h:20,
> > from include/linux/energy_model.h:7,
> > from include/linux/device.h:16,
> > from include/linux/acpi.h:14,
> > from drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:14:
> > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c: In function 'galaxybook_fw_attr_init':
> > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:1014:33: error: 'fw_attr' is a pointer; did you mean to use '->'?
> > 1014 | sysfs_attr_init(&fw_attr.display_name);
> > | ^
> > include/linux/sysfs.h:55:10: note: in definition of macro 'sysfs_attr_init'
> > 55 | (attr)->key = &__key; \
> > | ^~~~
> > drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c:1020:33: error: 'fw_attr' is a pointer; did you mean to use '->'?
> > 1020 | sysfs_attr_init(&fw_attr.current_value);
> > | ^
> > include/linux/sysfs.h:55:10: note: in definition of macro 'sysfs_attr_init'
> > 55 | (attr)->key = &__key; \
> > | ^~~~
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > f97634611408 ("platform/x86: samsung-galaxybook: Add samsung-galaxybook driver")
> >
> > I guess this was never built with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC set.
> >
> > I have used the drivers-x86 tree from next-20250205 for today.
>
> Apparently it wasn't.
>
> However, I've an LKP success report for f97634611408 (prior to pushing it
> to for-next, I always wait for LKP).
>
> Why LKP didn't catch it despite claiming it built with x86_64_allyesconfig
> (successfully)?? Did LKP not build the tree??
>
> I've pulled the commit from for-next until the problem is resolved to not
> keep breaking builds. Joshua, could you please take a look at it.
>
> --
> i.
>
Hi Ilpo and all,
Yes, great that there are tests in place :) Sorry this was one of the
later changes and I can't remember now when exactly I did the full
testing vs not as per the kernel documentation (as there were several
iterations to the patch for this driver) but I believe I have
identified what should be fixed and can send it shortly.
Ilpo would you prefer a patch on top of the existing patch (i.e. just
a diff of these 2 lines) or would you rather that I create a v11 of
the original patch and send the whole thing again?
Thanks again!
Best regards,
Joshua
